It was not their fatality, IMO, that wouldn't be counted against them as it wasn't a passenger on the plane nor a ground crew member.

The death is tragic, but to me does not impede on SW's fatality record. CO has sucked a ramper or two into an engine and I believe US has too, not sure if those count against those airlines. I think what is all said is.... true deadly passenger airplane crashes such as Pan Am and KLM at Tenerife, SQ at Singapore, and etc etc.

Fatality rates are calculated by the number of fatalities over the number of flights and passengers for a given time. Just one fatality isn't going to change WN's rate with the billions of passengers who've flown with them in the last 20-30 years.

- Many crashes that are not maintenance/crew related could probably have happened to any airline - it was just bad luck it happened to a specific one.

- Does one crash with many fatalities really make an airline less 'safe' than one with 3 crashes but less pax killed? ...or an airline that had 3 very lucky incidents that could have been much worse.

- Often, after a crash, procedures/maintenance etc. etc. are changed and greatly improved (so it doesn't happen again!), and perhaps that airline is now 'safer' than those that haven't had a recent crash.

So, I believe many factors should be taken into account.

Jimbo

I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 7):Fatality rates are calculated by the number of fatalities over the number of flights and passengers for a given time. Just one fatality isn't going to change WN's rate with the billions of passengers who've flown with them in the last 20-30 years

It's just as opinionated to say that 'safest airlines' should be based on fatalities, rather than many factors.

The original question was safest airlines - not just those with no fatalities - although I would agree that's a good starting point

The statisticians would probably say that those airlines with no fatalities, like Qantas, are just as likely (or more?) as those with a recent fataltity, to have the next crash. (Although QF has many less take-off/landings than most US domestic airlines due to their longer routes)

Jimbo

[Edited 2006-03-05 20:03:24]

I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 13):Not their fatality? Who's was it then? A Southwest airplane ended up on top of a car. If that airplane wasn't the cause of the kid's death, then what the hell was?

I totally agree, and it depends on what 'safest' means.

He's not including it because one interpretation of 'safest airline' is the safest in repect to the passengers, and your likelyhood of being in a crash as a passenger - not driving along the perimeter road.

Jimbo

[Edited 2006-03-05 20:23:17]

I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 11):www.airsafe.com will give you lots of answers by fatalities.

I've been to this site often and I find a lot of fault with it. For one the data concerning flight cycles has not been updated since I first discovered the site in '99. So according to airsafe airlines like Air Tran and Midwest have sky-high accident rates even though they have one fatal accident apiece and have flown millions of flights since the numbers were last touched, just plain lazy.

Also airsafe defines fatal events differently for example this entry appeared on CO's accident page...

"2 August 1997; Continental Airlines Boeing 757-200; Lima, Peru: During passenger boarding, an elderly passenger in a wheelchair was assisted up the rear portable stairs by a gate agent. The passenger was instructed by the gate agent to remain at the top of the steps while the agent loaded the wheelchair into the cargo bin. However, the passenger continued to walk into the aircraft, through the aft galley and then through the catering door. The passenger fell to the tarmac through a space between the catering truck and the airplane. The passenger died from the fall injuries. The eight crew members and 141 other passengers were not injured."

This accident was counted in CO's fatal accident rate. And there were similarly ridiculous items as well like Air China being penalized for carrying someone who would later die of SARS.

The often-cited claim of Qantas' flawlessness is sourced from (and what better source could there be?) the motion picture, "Rain Man."

Qantas are a stellar operator, but they have had, in their history, fatalities. None in a long, long time, though.

===

The argument about the tragic death in Chicago, after the Southwst jet overran the runway, is pedantic silliness. QF had their own, very high-profile runway overrun at BKK; it is their good fortune that there was not a road off the end of the runway there (as there are at many airports 'round the world), or they might have crushed a motor coach full of schoolchildren under the weight of a jumbo jet.

This is very subjective as what was safe 30 years ago can now have different management, lack of money and other problems causing a safety issue.. Also just because an airline has a major crash ie SQ doesnt mean its less safe than other airlines that havent recently had a problem ..

Yes Qantas has a great record but you cant tell me its safer than Air New Zealand , Singapore , BA and United etc..Especially when most airlines out source at least a part of their maintenace to other airlines..

Now other Australian airlines have had fatal crashes-Ansett, ANA (Not the Japanese one), and TAA for example, all of which have gone out of business in the meantime.

This is not to say that Qantas is the safest airline, their stellar record does have a lot to do with their comparatively small size, and a healthy dose of luck. The 1999 BKK runway overrun could have easly turned into a disaster of tremendous proportions, the pilot obviously had a horseshoe up his ass that day!

"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline." Frank Zappa